posted at 4:23 pm on June 4, 2012 by Allahpundit

Remember, under ObamaCare states have a “choice” of either introducing their own exchanges — subject to federal regulations, natch — by 2014 or letting their citizens participate in the new federal exchange when it finally comes online. If you’re a Republican governor who opposes O-Care, the obvious move is to do nothing. By creating a state exchange now, you’re legitimizing Obama’s pet boondoggle before Republicans in Congress get a serious crack at repealing it and burdening yourself with a program that may yet be micromanaged by federal regulators even if the mandate is struck down by the Supreme Court. Resist implementation as long as you can and hope for the best in November.

One can argue about the merits of an exchange absent Obamacare’s rules, regulations, authority shifts, price controls, and taxpayer funded subsidies. But the overwhelming majority of conservative policymakers understand that Obamacare’s exchanges are nothing more than delivery mechanisms for massive taxpayer-funded subsidies and bureaucratic regulations from Washington. What’s more, states which avoid implementing exchanges may be able to avoid the implementation of Obamacare almost in its entirety…

What’s most concerning about all of this is not that Romney selected one of the few Republicans in the country who backs implementation of Obamacare’s exchanges. It’s what the selection of Leavitt means as an indication of how Romney would potentially “fix” Obamacare if repeal proves impossible. According to Politico, “already, plugged-in Republicans from Washington to Salt Lake City are buzzing that Leavitt could make his own transition next January into the job of White House chief of staff or as a Valerie Jarrett-like personal counselor to a President Romney.”

Should the Supreme Court strike down only a portion of Obamacare, it seems clear Leavitt would be a major voice in deciding how to replace it. And he is convinced that “exchanges are part of the future, no matter what.”

Team Mitt answered an e-mail about this from Matt Lewis by insisting that they’re committed to repeal, but that’s a dodge. A four-seat pick-up in the Senate in November isn’t guaranteed, and even if it happens, it’s not fully clear which parts of ObamaCare can be repealed via reconciliation, which requires just 51 votes, and which can’t. Domenech’s worry, quite understandably, is that if full repeal ends up being derailed due to procedural roadblocks, Leavitt will convince Romney to keep both the exchanges and the federal “oversight” mechanisms that govern them. Imagine how useful those mechanisms will prove to the next Democratic administration that wants to reclaim the dream of top-down command and control of health-care policy.

It gets worse. Turns out that Leavitt’s consulting firm has done some nice business in advising states on … how to set up health care exchanges. Philip Klein marvels at the possibility of Romney’s decisions on one of his key vulnerabilities being driven by the magical combo of big-government impulses and crony capitalism:

Romney has been incredibly vague about how he would reform the health care system in the absence of Obamacare. The danger is that he could end up replacing it with a system that still has exchanges, but exchanges that are billed as having fewer regulations, lower subsidies and giving more flexibility to states. The problem is that this would still put the basic exchange infrastructure in place that a future Democratic administration could build on so the country would eventually wind up with Obamacare anyway – or something worse.

Beyond the health care issue, there’s the cronyism issue involved. One of the biggest dangers of a Romney “CEO presidency” is that his business background would make him conflate being pro-business with being pro-free market. But as we’ve seen time and again, these are two separate things. As somebody who stands to personally profit if more states implement Obamacare exchanges, Leavitt clearly comes from the tradition of a Republican Party that’s perfectly okay with expanding government in the name of helping business. This is something we saw during the Bush administration, most prominently, with the subsidies for drug companies in the Medicare prescription drug law (which Leavitt helped implement ass HHS Secretary) and the Wall Street bailout.

Follow the last link for background on Leavitt’s time as governor. As Klein puts it, “Leavitt, in short, was exactly the type of Republican the Tea Party was founded to oppose.” The only reassurance I feel that Mitt won’t follow him down the path to supporting federally-managed state exchanges is that he simply can’t afford to. He has no political capital to spend on defending Obama’s signature government expansion given the suspicions that surround him because of RomneyCare. And he also won’t be able to count on this issue fading into the background after he takes office. The Supreme Court’s going to force it front and center in the next few weeks with its ruling on O-Care; unless the law is upheld in its entirety and the GOP fails to win a Senate majority in November, Romney will have to deal with either repealing or “fixing” the statute ASAP after he’s sworn in next year. If he betrays the right straight out of the gate, he’ll be left with no base of support for his presidency virtually from day one. And the risk of a primary challenge in 2016 is more real for him than it’s been for incumbent presidents past. The tea party proved its staying power by knocking off Lugar and propelling Deb Fischer to victory, and there’s already speculation that Rand Paul and Paulworld might be ready to challenge Romney if he veers too far left. Frankly, I wonder if some grassroots conservatives might not relish the chance to primary Mitt if he betrays the cause, partly to make up for him having won the nomination this time and partly because there’ll be no fear of a new Obama term in 2016 if a primary battle weakens Romney. (There may, however, be fear of a Hillary term.) Exit question: Can he really afford to alienate his base on something this huge and visible? C’mon.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

What matters is what Romney has stated on the record: which is that he will prioritize the overturning of Obamacare.

minnesoter on June 4, 2012 at 8:25 PM

More accurately, he has stated that he will “repeal and replace” Obamacare.

It’s the intentional inclusion of the “replace” part that has me completely not trusting him on that particular topic. I’m not in the mood to “replace” Obamacare with a national version of Romneycare, thanks very much.

Very few conservatives who dislike Romney would even consider voting for Obama, and I’m not one of them, nor are most of the Romney critics. Neither Romney nor Obama will get my vote, and both Romney and Obama are responsible for that. If your candidate was worth a damn, they’d have my vote. Hell, McCain had my vote.

But then, McCain wasn’t the man who provided the blueprint for ObamaCare…

MadisonConservative on June 4, 2012 at 8:18 PM

You’re wrong about this. Obama is a million times worse than Romney and McCain (who also both suck).

Would you at least read David Limbaugh’s new book, THe Destroyer, and then say it’s not worth voting/supporting ROmney to defeat the most radical president in our lifetime?

You know all you guys and gals who are still pissed that your person got beat in the primary maybe should save your fire until after the election. Or you can help Obama right now by making an issue out of nothing.

Terrye on June 4, 2012 at 7:22 PM

A) it’s not ‘nothing’.
B) Romney needs to hear and know EVERY DAY that we’re expecting of him. Frankly, waiting until after the election (when he’s already made cabinet picks, staff picks, decided what’s going to constitute the first year or so of policy moves) to remind him of expectations would be abjectly stupid.

Would you at least read David Limbaugh’s new book, THe Destroyer, and then say it’s not worth voting/supporting ROmney to defeat the most radical president in our lifetime?

LevinFan on June 4, 2012 at 8:33 PM

I will not vote for a candidate based on who they are running against. I will only vote on them based on their OWN record. Romney’s record is that of a self-identified “progressive” that is pro-choice, anti-gun, and responsible for the system upon which ObamaCare was modeled.

Romney always does well with the low-hanging fruit. But any Republican could. It looks like Mitt thinks that a few slick campaign ads and strategically brilliant campaign stops could afford him a couple of electoral indulgences; too damn bad practical politics doesn’t work that way.

gryphon202 on June 4, 2012 at 8:18 PM

McCain wouldn’t have attacked Solyndra the way Romney did.

If fact Mccain would repudiate things before even asked to do so.

ROmney has refused to repudiate TRump and Rush despite the Left demanding he do so.

He has shown a willingness to fight which is alot better than McCain at least.

But I never supported Romney after I checked out his Record as Governor of Mass and how he campaigned for that office as Not a Republican.

Steveangell on June 4, 2012 at 7:28 PM

I’ve asked the question on how Romney could get elected in MA, a blue State with only a 11% Republican electorate. So the 89% Non-Republicans voted for a Republican? LOL We’ve all seen his videos and statements. That’s why he is a Flip/Flopper.

I’ve always been critical of Romney and never supported him nor voted for him in my Primary.

I know he’s the presumed Nominee, but he is what he is and also he isn’t what he is not.

Here we go again, another case of Romney still flirting with Big Government. Another reason why I’m still not voting for Romney. Another reason why I’m not on board with the “Anyone but Obama/Anyone with an R by their name” crowd. Another reason why I’m leaning towards going Independent as a Libertarian, Constitutionalists, or Conservative.

And of course, the Mitt Bot’s/Big Republican folks I’m sure will want to claim that I’m either A. Stupid/ignorant, because apparently, me not supporting the party nominee, is horrible, and will doom us all to 4 more years of Obama. or B. a Secret member of Huffpo/DailyKos/Democrat Underground/Soros-Funded group/etc trying to destroy the Repubilican/Conservative movement from the inside.
Frankly B would be funny, if it wasn’t so insultingly false.

To the first accusation, really, that’s becoming a tiresome, and weak argument to hear. Overall, that argument starts to tread sport’s team mentality: “It doesn’t matter that our guy does many of the same things as the other guy, because he at least is wearing our team’s colors”

Uhm, pardon me, but that’s one of the reasons why the Tea Party formed a few years ago. One of those reasons, was because people were sick and tired of this “Business as usual, as long as our party is in power” view. That’s in 2010, it was not just merely “Let’s just get the old guard back in power” it was “Hey, let’s get some fresh faces, and fresh ideas in the party” It’s why people are now seeking to remove Orin Hatch, with a different Republican candidate.

Blind loyalty is not useful to the future of the Republican party, nor the nation as a whole. it is only useful to those who wish to continue staying in power for the sake of power and money. It makes us no better than the members of the Democrat party who seek to stay in power by telling their voters to vote for them simply for having a D by their name, which is pretty much what Obama is running on at this point. Further more, it only encourages the Republican party, to push for more of these RINO candidates. It tells them “the rabble can be duped, so we can put whoever will help protect the party elites’ power.”

History should’ve hopefully taught us all after the ’08 election, that running on a platform of “I’ve got an R by name” doesn’t cut it in elections. In 2010, the Republican party still didn’t get it. (I had the joy of watching a repeat of the ’08 election, by seeing my state stay in Democrat control at the state capital, with the Republican attempt, being weakly led by the Republican candidate for Governor using the battle cry of “Vote for me, because I have an R by name and I’m not the current sitting Democrat Governor!”. The Democrat Governor won hands down). And sadly, in 2012, it still hasn’t gotten into some people’s heads

I will not vote for a candidate based on who they are running against. I will only vote on them based on their OWN record. Romney’s record is that of a self-identified “progressive” that is pro-choice, anti-gun, and responsible for the system upon which ObamaCare was modeled.

They actually looked at Mitts actual record. What he actually did. No one here is saying he did not do these things. Not in a believable way. You just shoot the Messanger like Saul Alinsky teaches. You make yourself look a little like Obama who taught Saul Alinsky.

Steveangell on June 4, 2012 at 7:13 PM

As I said, I’m a libertarian and well aware of Romney’s record. Once again, if you vote Obama, stay home in protest, or vote 3rd party, you need your head examined.

In 1,218 days (thru 05.22.12), Obama added $5,094,341,558,534.01 to the national debt, increased public debt by 72.97%, and, during his first 41 months, oversaw the Federal government’s accumulation of more debt than in the first 219 years of the Republic.

I’m no Mittbot. Hell, I can’t stand any politician. What I do know, however, is that I will not worry that Mitt Romney would will sell out America and her allies like Barack Obama has and will. I know that he will not demonise certain groups and pit American against American. I know that I will be able to criticise him without bassholes screaming that I am a racist. I know that he knows more about economics than Obama knows about anything. I know that he doesn’t hate capitalism. I also know that I will be able to abandon my strike and go back to work.

I know that with Obama out of the White House I will be able to take a breath and know that the current idiot will not be able to make anymore non-recess-recess appointments, go to war in another country without anyone’s approval, or assassinate another American (even the most evil) in contravention of the COTUS and Supreme Court precedent.

I know that I won’t have to worry about a Communist like Van Jones or a Socialist like Carol Browner running around the White House or a possible Harold Koh or Cass Sunstein being put on the Supreme Court.

Sure, Romney is nowhere near my ideal candidate, but he is Heaven compared to the nightmare living in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue currently.

And, all of this makes me anything but a Mittbot. I’m just realistic enough to know that, unless Romney withdraws or dies, he will be the nominee and is the ONLY hope that any of us have to get rid of Obama.

Do you have a problem with the Utah Exchange? Yes or no? If yes, what part of it do you not agree with (other than the fact is was forced on the states which I wholeheartedly disagree with). Utah was already moving in this direction prior to ObamaCare…

Don’t you think it’s a braindead move for ROmney to appoint Leavitt to lead the transition team though? Romney had to know how much this would rile up the conservative base, why even think of doing something so stupid?

LevinFan on June 4, 2012 at 8:01 PM

I don’t know what the thought process was. I doubt it occurred to him that appointing Leavitt to this temporary task, unrelated to ObamaCare, would raise such alarms. Leavitt is a very competent, experienced executive and undoubtedly Romney trusts him on a personal level. Is he a hardcore Tea Party conservative? No, but that’s not a prerequisite for the transition team.

I don’t know that this will rise to the level of broader indignation outside what’s expressed by commenters at places like Red State and Hot Air or from Drew at Ace’s place who has been a Romney critic all along. I think the criticism is way overblown, and trying to paint him as an ObamaCare advocate is a huge stretch. I agree there is a potential conflict of interest vis a vis personal financial gain, but we’re not at that point yet and won’t be unless Mitt wins and Leavitt is hired. We’ll see how this pans out in the next few days.

They actually looked at Mitts actual record. What he actually did. No one here is saying he did not do these things. Not in a believable way. You just shoot the Messanger like Saul Alinsky teaches. You make yourself look a little like Obama who taught Saul Alinsky.

Steveangell on June 4, 2012 at 7:13 PM

As I said, I’m a libertarian and well aware of Romney’s record. Once again, if you vote Obama, stay home in protest, or vote 3rd party, you need your head examined.

In 1,218 days (thru 05.22.12), Obama added $5,094,341,558,534.01 to the national debt, increased public debt by 72.97%, and, during his first 41 months, oversaw the Federal government’s accumulation of more debt than in the first 219 years of the Republic.

I’m no Mittbot. Hell, I can’t stand any politician. What I do know, however, is that I will not worry that Mitt Romney would will sell out America and her allies like Barack Obama has and will. I know that he will not demonise certain groups and pit American against American. I know that I will be able to criticise him without barking spiderholes screaming that I am a racist. I know that he knows more about economics than Obama knows about anything. I know that he doesn’t hate capitalism. I also know that I will be able to abandon my strike and go back to work.

I know that with Obama out of the White House I will be able to take a breath and know that the current idiot will not be able to make anymore non-recess-recess appointments, go to war in another country without anyone’s approval, or assassinate another American (even the most evil) in contravention of the COTUS and Supreme Court precedent.

I know that I won’t have to worry about a Communist like Van Jones or a Socialist like Carol Browner running around the White House or a possible Harold Koh or Cass Sunstein being put on the Supreme Court.

Sure, Romney is nowhere near my ideal candidate, but he is Heaven compared to the nightmare living in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue currently.

And, all of this makes me anything but a Mittbot. I’m just realistic enough to know that, unless Romney withdraws or dies, he will be the nominee and is the ONLY hope that any of us have to get rid of Obama.

“Vote for me, because I have an R by name and I’m not the current sitting Democrat Governor!”. The Democrat Governor won hands down). And sadly, in 2012, it still hasn’t gotten into some people’s heads

Razgriez on June 4, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Exactly we have Harry Reid, Coons and Murkowski (I) because RINOS would not vote for a Conservative. But now they want us to vote for their ultra “Liberal Moderate” to the left of Kennedy Democrat. No I mostly will not even dignify Romney with the label Republican. But I will never vote for a liberal Democrat no matter what lies he tells me about his Party.

I want to remind you that if you ever whined about health insurance because it is unfair to you and too expensive for you, in your state, YOU are the reason we have Obama Care.

You didn’t go to your state house and tell them at your state house what was wrong with it, you didn’t buy something else, you bought it and whined.

Sorry that Obama Care has health insurance exchanges, but if your state has health insurance laws but you can’t figure them out and don’t know the difference between one policy and another, and don’t know how to compare one company to another, don’t whine that you don’t like your health insurance plan. You don’t have to have a health insurance exchange, but you ought to have access to the information about the companies and their policies, and what is legal in your state. You can call it whatever you like. It is not a place that gives away government health care, it is a place that establishes what is for sale in your state. And some people will find their way to the free health care, but they would do that anyway.

No, you give me a break…if Romney is all that bad I guess it says something about how crappy the other candidates must have been if he could beat them…well all except for Sarah Palin who never even bothered to run.

Terrye on June 4, 2012 at 7:36 PM

Terrye just because you haven’t been on HA lately, doesn’t mean the rest of us have been asleep. We watched the debates and followed what Romney did with his millions and the despicable ads against the other Republican Candidates. So don’t get too high and mighty just because your boy is the “presumptive” Nominee.

Get off of Palin also. I remember your hatred toward everyone that didn’t support Romney.

Once again I will say. It does not matter who you vote for. It did not matter in 2008 either. Or with GHW Bush second term. Dole or Ford. These RINOS never ever win.

Romney gives me no reason to vote for him but he also gives Regan Democrats no reason to vote for him. He will lose. He has given no compeling reason to vote for him. Just Obama is horrible vote for me. I will do Obama policies better than he did and use his same brand of economics correctly. It did not work for Obama and will not for Romney.

I do not believe the first Governor to implement Cap and Trade will do anything to help Coal or Oil. He will continue as Obama has. Except correct the Keystone error.

Do you have a problem with the Utah Exchange? Yes or no? If yes, what part of it do you not agree with (other than the fact is was forced on the states which I wholeheartedly disagree with). Utah was already moving in this direction prior to ObamaCare…

There are only 85 Conservative Republicans in Congress. They are not a majority of Republicans. I think they did the best they possibly could. But the RINOS still have power there. A reason Mitt the biggest RINO ever would be so harmful to the Party.

Okay folks..New scenario..SCOTUS does not strike down Obiecare so it is set to become law..Now we know if Obie is reelected it is going to implemented..If Romney is elected there will be changes to our benefit..Who do you go with???..Should be an easy answer..:)

As I said, I’m a libertarian and well aware of Romney’s record. Once again, if you vote Obama, stay home in protest, or vote 3rd party, you need your head examined.

In 1,218 days (thru 05.22.12), Obama added $5,094,341,558,534.01 to the national debt, increased public debt by 72.97%, and, during his first 41 months, oversaw the Federal government’s accumulation of more debt than in the first 219 years of the Republic.

I’m no Mittbot. Hell, I can’t stand any politician. What I do know, however, is that I will not worry that Mitt Romney would will sell out America and her allies like Barack Obama has and will. I know that he will not demonise certain groups and pit American against American. I know that I will be able to criticise him without barking spiderholes screaming that I am a racist. I know that he knows more about economics than Obama knows about anything. I know that he doesn’t hate capitalism. I also know that I will be able to abandon my strike and go back to work.

I know that with Obama out of the White House I will be able to take a breath and know that the current idiot will not be able to make anymore non-recess-recess appointments, go to war in another country without anyone’s approval, or assassinate another American (even the most evil) in contravention of the COTUS and Supreme Court precedent.

I know that I won’t have to worry about a Communist like Van Jones or a Socialist like Carol Browner running around the White House or a possible Harold Koh or Cass Sunstein being put on the Supreme Court.

Sure, Romney is nowhere near my ideal candidate, but he is Heaven compared to the nightmare living in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue currently.

And, all of this makes me anything but a Mittbot. I’m just realistic enough to know that, unless Romney withdraws or dies, he will be the nominee and is the ONLY hope that any of us have to get rid of Obama.

Resist We Much on June 4, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Very well said !!! I have stolen your post and plan to use it as my own very soon !!

For the millionth time, no, it’s not. If you continue to insist so, I won’t bother responding.

A vote for Romney is a vote for Romney.
A vote for Obama is a vote for Obama.
A vote for neither is a vote for neither

Romney supporters say a vote for neither is a vote for Obama.
Obama supporters say a vote for neither is a vote for Romney.

You’re both wrong.

Do you really think Romney and Obama are the same? Seriously??

LevinFan on June 4, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Where in my post did I say that they were the same?

MadisonConservative on June 4, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Good conservatives staying home may cost Romney the election. The more people like you refusing to vote, the greater the chance that it happens. The Left will come out to vote, our side staying home will be the biggest reason that could cause us to lose.

By saying you will vote for neither, it kind of came off as you saying they were the same.

DOing nothing to stop Obama is evil to me. What was the quote again? Evil is when good men do nothing to stop evil people or something like that?

And don’t threaten me with not responding, no loss.

Really if you don’t do everything in your power to stop Obama, which means you must support Romney to do so, then you really shouldn’t be allowed to criticize Obama anymore — I mean why would you care, it wasn’t even worth it for you to vote against him!

Sure, Romney is nowhere near my ideal candidate, but he is Heaven compared to the nightmare living in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue currently.

And, all of this makes me anything but a Mittbot. I’m just realistic enough to know that, unless Romney withdraws or dies, he will be the nominee and is the ONLY hope that any of us have to get rid of Obama.

Resist We Much on June 4, 2012 at 8:40 PM

You are fighing a losing battle on two different fronts:

A) “Tantrum” voters – they will only support the candidate who meets their EXACT specification. It is not about real life politics; how you get elected and how you govern. It is now and always shall about THEM and only THEM. Where have we seen this sort of narcissism before …?

B) The moby’s and the the trolls – Some of the “I told you Romney couldn’t be trusted” people you are going back and forth with have posted very despicable statements about this country and its people. I don’t care who you say you are. Or how conservative you claim to be. When you start comparing this country, at its core, to the Nazi’s and the Communist’s; you can stop pretending to be anything but a hard core liberal.

There are many better things for anyone to do with their time than engaging in a talking to a wall effort.

You are trying to be reasonable with mules. Have fun if you enjoy it so much but don’t expect the mules to come away from the effort any smarter or more reasonable.

Not that it will do any good but I just left a scathing message on the Romney HQ voicemail. I told him that if he appoints this guy, he loses my money (not that I was going to contribute but they don’t know that), my vote (I’ll probably still vote for him) and my time (also wasn’t going to happen). I said that conservatives are pissed and he better recitify this soon.

CINO : yes Mittness is a big-govt progressive, but he’s our progressive and on our leash.

Me: a progressive is by nature no respector of your inalienable rights and therefore evil because whenever the opportunity presents itself, he will find a reason for defining a point where “maybe you have had enough rights and out to trim back for the good of society “.

No thanks. And as bad as Oboobi might get wiped out in a landslide, some of you might want to think about voting your conscience.

Folks talking about holding their nose and pulling for Mittness and hoping they will be able to steer him rightward are delusional. When has that strategy worked? How’s that working again for Arizona when they voted for McVain again in 2010? Meh. You are free to delude yourselves, but don’t expect me to join in the total absorption.

The biggest sword hanging over Mittness’ head would be a scenario where like 92 where Mittness beats Oboobi but still fails to get an outright majority. The Perot effect is the only thing that stopped Clinton from going all liberal on us.

I supported other Republicans in the primaries, and I contributed to them. I did not support or contribute to Romney. Tomorrow, however, I will vote for Romney in the California primary, and I will vote for him in November. I likely will contribute to his campaign.
He was not my choice, but if he is elected we will still have a much better chance to get our country back than if Obama wins again.

Not that it will do any good but I just left a scathing message on the Romney HQ voicemail. I told him that if he appoints this guy, he loses my money (not that I was going to contribute but they don’t know that), my vote (I’ll probably still vote for him) and my time (also wasn’t going to happen). I said that conservatives are pissed and he better recitify this soon.

Let’s say Obamacare is not or only part of it is struck down the the Supreme Court.

To answer the question posed by Dire Straits: would you rather have the guy who will at a minimum make some more changes to Obamacare to our benefit or the guy who’s going to make it so we’re stuck with Obamacare for life and actually make it even worse, like single payer… etc. ??

GBA – I thought you were in Galveston, or are you from there but live in the People’s Republic of California now?

Those of us in Texas are used to having to hogtie Cornyn and KBH from going too far to the left. During the great amnesty battle of 2006/2007, I called their offices every day and usually went to Cornyn’s Houston office weekly since it was down the road. Looks like we’ll constantly be holding Mitt’s feet to the fire, if elected. It does get tiring though. Funny, I never had to do this from 1981 – 1989.

I’ve asked the question on how Romney could get elected in MA, a blue State with only a 11% Republican electorate. So the 89% Non-Republicans voted for a Republican? (snip)
bluefox on June 4, 2012 at 8:36 PM

I have wondered about this myself. It would be interesting to see some speeches and debates re that election.

No, it’s not nonsense. A few of the ABRs on here have admitted as much. Purity is all that matters. That’s not backbone, it’s a delusion that somehow losing equals winning.

changer1701 on June 4, 2012 at 9:19 PM

If you can’t convince people to vote for Romney that have already said they wouldn’t, those people aren’t going to be the ones pissed over the very real possibility of an Obama victory. I think you ought to quit barking up the wrong tree. The people you are denigrating and insulting just don’t give a shit anymore, and Romney hiring Leavitt just vindicates them.

By the by, states can sap liberty as well, Danish. Not everything that a state does is liberty-enhancing just because it’s a state doing it. (cf. California)
gryphon202 on June 4, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Of course some can and do sap liberty! What do you suggest we do about it? As an individual you can move to places like Texas. It becomes a problem for all of us if, say, Obama arranged it so we taxpayers end up bailing out a state like California.

There’s no guarantee that the exchanges won’t be mandatory under Mitt. Mitt has said in at least one campaign ad that he plans to replace Obamacare with something else. I have yet to hear him explain what, so I stand by my characterization of Leavitt as a socialized medicine advocate….
gryphon202 on June 4, 2012 at 8:03 PM

I doubt Mitt supports mandating state exchanges, and not being certain of what Mitt plans to do is not equivalent to Leavitt being a socialized medicine advocate. That frankly makes no sense. He (and many congresspeeps) have talked about “repeal and replace”. Much will depend on what Congress and the Senate in particular looks like.

No thanks. And as bad as Oboobi might get wiped out in a landslide, some of you might want to think about voting your conscience.

AH_C on June 4, 2012 at 9:11 PM

I will be voting my conscience. I would love to vote for a candidate that would end Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, corporate subsidies, farm subsidies, end Wilsonian foreign policy, fight to win and destroy or stay home, reign in the Fed, give power back to the states, repeal the 16th and 17th amendments, close most of the ABC agencies, take an axe to the Federal budget and payroll, etc., but I know that she would never get elected. My conscience tells me that I have to vote for the person that has the best chance of beating the man that accumulated more debt in 41 months than the presidents and Congresses of both parties did in the first 219 years of the Republic. I know that I have a duty to future generations to vote for someone, who will at least attempt some kind of entitlement reform, which Obama won’t.

Our conservative brothers who refuse to pull the handel for mittens aren’t going to matter this run….and I can relate to their disgust. They’ll all be voting downticket…and donating to key senate/house races…..everyone has a roll.

If someone had told me in ’08 after the McRINO debacle, that I’d be voting for mittens in ’12….I’d have laughed in their face….yet here we all are.

Unfortunately, many are so dominated by fear that they have wound up worshiping a political candidate, no different than the Obamabots of 2008(but with less actual enthusiasm…and more seething hostility).

MadisonConservative on June 4, 2012 at 8:25 PM

I don’t think they’re dominated by fear or even by an adoration of Romney. They just want to stick it to the TrueCon rubes. It makes them feel superior and smarter. Well, I guess there are a few here and there who are abject Romney sycophants, like Buy Danish and Basilsbest. Romney could propose opening gulags all over the country and BD would be going around saying “Don’t you think states should have the voluntary option to put away their undesired dissidents?”

I doubt Mitt supports mandating state exchanges, and not being certain of what Mitt plans to do is not equivalent to Leavitt being a socialized medicine advocate. That frankly makes no sense. He (and many congresspeeps) have talked about “repeal and replace”. Much will depend on what Congress and the Senate in particular looks like.

Buy Danish on June 4, 2012 at 9:22 PM

You doubt. But you don’t know. You don’t know anymore than I do. All you can do is tell me “Mitt said..” this, or “Mitt did…” that “…while he was Massachusetts governor.” You don’t sound quite so cocksure about Romney’s principles (or lack thereof) when you put it that way. In the end, I guess you assume good faith on Romney’s part and I assume bad faith. I’m not in the habit of gambling, but I’d say one is far more likely than the other, given the givens.

Look, even assuming the best of intentions on Romney’s part, if Leavitt is employed in any capacity by Romney, who has said he will repeal/replace Obamacare, he would be engaging in a massive conflict-of-interest, the likes of which you and every other self-proclaimed “conservative” would be shouting about from the rooftops if it were a Democrat involved in the same chicanery. And that’s exactly what it is: chicanery. It’s okay to like Romney because he has an “R” next to his name. It’s okay if that’s the only reason you like him. But I really wish rombots would be open and honest about it. Acting out of fear, of Obama or anything/anyone else, rarely brings good results.

If you can’t convince people to vote for Romney that have already said they wouldn’t, those people aren’t going to be the ones pissed over the very real possibility of an Obama victory. I think you ought to quit barking up the wrong tree. The people you are denigrating and insulting just don’t give a shit anymore, and Romney hiring Leavitt just vindicates them.

gryphon202 on June 4, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Of course they won’t be pissed, because they prefer Obama. And Leavitt’s hiring is no vindication…they see that in Romney’s possible loss, which is why they root for it. There are going to be lots of staffers that aren’t 100% TrueCon certified…that’s going to be true of every campaign. Doesn’t mean squat, unless you’re someone looking for something to b!tch about.

No, it’s not nonsense. A few of the ABRs on here have admitted as much. Purity is all that matters. That’s not backbone, it’s a delusion that somehow losing equals winning.

changer1701 on June 4, 2012 at 9:19 PM

If you can’t convince people to vote for Romney that have already said they wouldn’t, those people aren’t going to be the ones pissed over the very real possibility of an Obama victory. I think you ought to quit barking up the wrong tree. The people you are denigrating and insulting just don’t give a shit anymore, and Romney hiring Leavitt just vindicates them.

gryphon202 on June 4, 2012 at 9:21 PM

That raises a good point. When exactly does it become Romney’s responsibility to get conservatives to vote for him, rather than simply browbeating those conservatives by calling them “socialists” and “O-bots” and the like? Any f***-up Romney pulls and it’s OUR fault for complaining about it.

Then you’re irrational, and you’re labeling the majority of the American people as “evil”. Remember: only about 40% of the population votes, and roughly half of them vote Republican. Therefore, the only people “doing something to stop Obama” constitute about 20-25% of the population. The rest, according to you, are “evil”.

Of course they won’t be pissed, because they prefer Obama. And Leavitt’s hiring is no vindication…they see that in Romney’s possible loss, which is why they root for it. There are going to be lots of staffers that aren’t 100% TrueCon certified…that’s going to be true of every campaign. Doesn’t mean squat, unless you’re someone looking for something to b!tch about.

changer1701 on June 4, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Well you’re a better man than I if you can not only tell what every ABR thinks, but exactly why they think that. I’d say the fact that you’re lumping them all together would make it rather easy to find a single counterexample. You’d think if they’d prefer Obama, they’d all vote FOR Obama instead of staying home…

That raises a good point. When exactly does it become Romney’s responsibility to get conservatives to vote for him, rather than simply browbeating those conservatives by calling them “socialists” and “O-bots” and the like? Any f***-up Romney pulls and it’s OUR fault for complaining about it.

Of course they won’t be pissed, because they prefer Obama. And Leavitt’s hiring is no vindication…they see that in Romney’s possible loss, which is why they root for it. There are going to be lots of staffers that aren’t 100% TrueCon certified…that’s going to be true of every campaign. Doesn’t mean squat, unless you’re someone looking for something to b!tch about.

changer1701 on June 4, 2012 at 9:31 PM

So people to the right of Romney….prefer Obama to Romney.

This must be some of that liberal math sparky…cuz you lost me.

This TruCon nonsense that seems to be permiating Hot Gas is getting a little tiresome also.

This place is getting so GD Squishy that I don’t wnat to touch anything here.

I don’t know which exactly I’ll be voting for at the top of the ballot, but it definitely won’t be Obama. At any rate I’ll be concentrating on down-ticket stuff. That’s where the action will be whether we get the hard-core lefty or the squish.

Romney could propose opening gulags all over the country and BD would be going around saying “Don’t you think states should have the voluntary option to put away their

undesired dissidents?”
ddrintn on June 4, 2012 at 9:29 PM

There you go again. Do you think this makes you sound sane? No one is more of an anti-Communist/anti-Stalinist, greater proponent of free speech here than I am. Heck, you’re the one who has complained that I characterized Obama as a Marxist. Now you’re babbling about Mitt, me, and gulags?

Save that $ for the senate races. We have to hit the senate hard this run.

Mittens doesn’t need your money.

Tim_CA on June 4, 2012 at 9:17 PM

I’ve already given to Cruz and may send something to Hatch’s opponent. The more conservative the Senate, the less likely Romney is to drift left.

TxAnn56 on June 4, 2012 at 9:21 PM

I’m thinking Cruz before the runoff (he should win the General if he gets that far I would think) and Mourdock, maybe Deb Fischer would be the best ones to support.

Not sure I’d give money to the Hatch-Liljenquist race. Levin has made a good case for Hatch, while Malkin has done the same for Liljenquist. I respect Levin and Malkin alot…. I don’t think either candidate in this race will be a RINO or nearly as bad as Romney for that matter.

it is indeed so. However it is Congress that makes the laws for POTUS to sign off. If 25% vote conservative 3rd party or write-in, the GOP -most likely to hold their majority – and Congress likely to shift rightward won’t be so easily kow-towed by either Mittness nor Oboobi.

Look at how Dubya forced many a GOP to support part d, schips, nclb etc. Now imagine POTUS Mittness trying to twist Congress when some of them can look him in the face and tell him their 55% trumps his 47% any day and that he’s the one that needs to pivot. On the flipside, if Oboobi wins, more gridlock is no bad thing, especially with a Senate gop majority. The focus this year is Congress, not POTUS.

Bottomline, any potus that squeaks in has no mandate. For my kids sake, I cannot and will not give Mittness a mandate. I rather that Congress gets the mandate to be as conservate to the utmost and let Mittness adjust his etch-a-sketch to that reality.

There you go again. Do you think this makes you sound sane? No one is more of an anti-Communist/anti-Stalinist, greater proponent of free speech here than I am. Heck, you’re the one who has complained that I characterized Obama as a Marxist. Now you’re babbling about Mitt, me, and gulags?

Pathetic.

Buy Danish on June 4, 2012 at 9:38 PM

I beg to differ. Anyone actually criticizing Romney is more of an anti-communist/anti-stalnist proponent of free speech than you are. You’d just as soon we all shut up and stop with the criticism, already.

There you go again. Do you think this makes you sound sane? No one is more of an anti-Communist/anti-Stalinist, greater proponent of free speech here than I am. Heck, you’re the one who has complained that I characterized Obama as a Marxist. Now you’re babbling about Mitt, me, and gulags?

Pathetic.

Buy Danish on June 4, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Every comment you make makes you look like a pathetic googly-eyed Romney sycophant. Whatever the man does or says you’ll find a handy rationalization. Everybody knows this.

All you can do is tell me “Mitt said..” this, or “Mitt did…” that “…while he was Massachusetts governor.”

What’s your criteria for judging candidates? Mind reading? Have you actually been to his website btw?

Look, even assuming the best of intentions on Romney’s part, if Leavitt is employed in any capacity by Romney, who has said he will repeal/replace Obamacare, he would be engaging in a massive conflict-of-interest…

The point is no matter what you are, conservative or moderate… we all need to wake up to defeat Obama…. otherwise we’re finished as a country.

LevinFan on June 4, 2012 at 9:44 PM

And a lot of people have been saying for at least 3 years that they are tired of that sort of “get in line” shit. And if the country can’t survive Obama it’s finished anyway. All this hyperbole doesn’t make swallowing the Romney shit sandwich any more pleasant.

I posted this early this morning. If you’ve already seen it, ignore it. For those that haven’t, let it serve as a kind of olive branch. We can, at least, all laugh or stop bickering for a sec, stand together, slack-jawed and speechless:

Then you’re irrational, and you’re labeling the majority of the American people as “evil”. Remember: only about 40% of the population votes, and roughly half of them vote Republican. Therefore, the only people “doing something to stop Obama” constitute about 20-25% of the population. The rest, according to you, are “evil”.

MadisonConservative on June 4, 2012 at 9:34 PM

Sounds about right….

You have people who are stupid — liberals

And then you have the ones that simply don’t care. All they care about is sitcoms, sports, and other trivial things. It’s not important enough for them to save the country.

And I assume you will no longer criticize Obama since you will not be trying to stop him?

Well that’s neither here nor there. He is not, but he will be if a transition takes place, so your spin is immaterial. He has been named to Romney’s transition team, and either Leavitt will be working with/for Romney, or Obama will maintain in the White House for another four gruelling years. Much as the ABR’s would wish it, there’s no rational third option.

In fairness to the rombots, I should probably point out that hiring Leavitt doesn’t mean that Romney has lost my vote. I think it’s only fair to ask, then, is this going to be a net positive or a net negative for Romney in terms of optics? I mean, sure you can spend between now and November complaining about the complainers, but that doesn’t change the hard cold fact that Romney needs more votes in the electoral college, which has almost always meant a solid majority of the popular vote. Whatever one’s personal opinion of Romney and his policies, this looks like a boneheaded move to me coming from someone who should be trying to shore up his base.

I beg to differ. Anyone actually criticizing Romney is more of an anti-communist/anti-stalnist proponent of free speech than you are. You’d just as soon we all shut up and stop with the criticism, already.

Let’s say Obamacare is not or only part of it is struck down the the Supreme Court.

To answer the question posed by Dire Straits: would you rather have the guy who will at a minimum make some more changes to Obamacare to our benefit or the guy who’s going to make it so we’re stuck with Obamacare for life and actually make it even worse, like single payer… etc. ??

Should be a pretty easy choice!

LevinFan on June 4, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Most likely Obama could not get the votes to do anything to fix Obama Care thus it would end up mostly repealed.

But President Romney could easily get 60 votes as some RINOS would vote with the Democrats to keep Obama Care lite. Romney Care forced on each State to level the States as Romney promises. He would block grant money to the States like he said but they would have to implement Romney Care or something very similar.

I doubt Romney would even try for a second term. He would do just like he did in Mass. Use one term very effectively to implement his “Liberal Moderate” “Progressive” ideas.

By the way for those that know little history. The Communist were very active prior to WW2 in America even after but then Mc Carthy exposed the USSR and China for what communism really is. The Communist after that changed their name to Progressives. Eventually some called themselves Liberals but now most all call themselves Progressives. Mitt identifies himself as a Progressive so lets make it simple Obama is a Muslim Marxist. Romney is a Marxist. They work together just fine Muslims and Marxist as Muslims are Marxist.

In fairness to the rombots, I should probably point out that hiring Leavitt doesn’t mean that Romney has lost my vote. I think it’s only fair to ask, then, is this going to be a net positive or a net negative for Romney in terms of optics? I mean, sure you can spend between now and November complaining about the complainers, but that doesn’t change the hard cold fact that Romney needs more votes in the electoral college, which has almost always meant a solid majority of the popular vote. Whatever one’s personal opinion of Romney and his policies, this looks like a boneheaded move to me coming from someone who should be trying to shore up his base.

it is indeed so. However it is Congress that makes the laws for POTUS to sign off. If 25% vote conservative 3rd party or write-in, the GOP -most likely to hold their majority – and Congress likely to shift rightward won’t be so easily kow-towed by either Mittness nor Oboobi.

Look at how Dubya forced many a GOP to support part d, schips, nclb etc. Now imagine POTUS Mittness trying to twist Congress when some of them can look him in the face and tell him their 55% trumps his 47% any day and that he’s the one that needs to pivot. On the flipside, if Oboobi wins, more gridlock is no bad thing, especially with a Senate gop majority. The focus this year is Congress, not POTUS.

Bottomline, any potus that squeaks in has no mandate. For my kids sake, I cannot and will not give Mittness a mandate. I rather that Congress gets the mandate to be as conservate to the utmost and let Mittness adjust his etch-a-sketch to that reality.

AH_C on June 4, 2012 at 9:40 PM

Here’s what you’re missing. Obama has and will continue to abuse his power. Look what he did with the EPA and the Clean Air Act bypassing Congress. Look at the power to the czars. He had and will continue to make congress irrelevant.

And gridlock will not get Obamacare repealed, we will be stuck with it for life.

The more conservative the Senate, the less likely Romney is to drift left.

TxAnn56 on June 4, 2012 at 9:21 PM

;-)

Tim_CA on June 4, 2012 at 9:56 PM

No I would say quite the opposite.

The more Conservative the Senate is the more likely Romney is to rule as a Democrat and only go for a few RINOs to get things passed. This is how he did it in Mass. This is the only possible way to get to 60 votes.

Only if there were enough Conservatives to stop Romney from pealing off enough Republicans would this work.

Two articles today about Mitts hard Democratic left turn. The Etch-A-Sketch has been used.